Yar'Adua's allergy to 'open government'

By Levi Obijiofor

For the second time in two years, President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua has attempted to project himself as an advocate of press freedom. But, like his meaningless promise to adhere to the rule of law, Yar'Adua's latest order to his ministers and heads of government departments to make information readily available to the media is a stunning departure from the common practice where ministers and heads of departments routinely engaged in public misinformation and deliberate hoarding of information from the media.

According to Olusegun Adeniyi, presidential spokesperson on media and publicity, who broke the news to government officers and journalists last weekend, Yar'Adua's new instruction was designed to facilitate more transparency and accountability in the administration of government business. He said: "...ministers and senior government officials have been mandated to re-organise their information departments and units with a view to making them more accessible to the media, which has the constitutional responsibility of holding the government accountable to the people."

From the tone of his voice, Adeniyi seemed to suggest that Yar'Adua deserved an award for rolling out this new policy statement. Yar'Adua's gesture is riddled with contradictions. For a government that treats the media as an irritant, Yar'Adua's latest directive represents a publicity stunt designed to polish the image of a government that suffers from serious allergic reactions to unfavourable media reports.

For Yar'Adua, who late last year sued the Leadership newspaper for reporting inaccurately on his health, you can see why journalists would view the latest action with a great deal of cynicism. Only gullible editors and reporters would rejoice at the news that Yar'Adua is warming up to a better relationship with the media. How can we believe this man? It was Yar'Adua, the newborn advocate of media freedom, whose government last year administered oaths of secrecy on top public servants and agents of the state in order to keep public information secret. It is indeed paradoxical that Yar'Adua should now be talking about his desire to operate an "open" government.

How can Yar'Adua operate an "open" or transparent government when he continues to roll out directives aimed at undermining the ability of the media to report on failed government policies and projects? How does Yar'Adua plan to conduct "open" government when he is nervous about, and sensitive to, harmless questions about his health?

The propaganda elements in Yar'Adua's new policy direction are too obvious to ignore. There have been significant instances in which Yar'Adua and his aides directly and indirectly violated the fundamental rights of Nigerian journalists. There were also cases in which the protectors of the president and other security agents infringed on journalists' freedom to report on matters relating to the government.

Closer evaluation of the new guidelines reveals why journalists should not rejoice over Yar'Adua's new philosophy on open government. In the past 23 months, nearly two years since his election, Yar'Adua has watched in silence as agents of the state engaged in indiscriminate and illegal arrest, detention and vicious abuse of journalists and ordinary citizens. In 2008, at least two well-known online journalists were picked up and incarcerated in Nigeria by overzealous security officials. In early November 2008, Nigerians watched in horror as a young woman, Uzoma Okere, was brutalised and undressed publicly by naval rookies in full view of their boss.

More than four months since Yar'Adua requested Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Paul Dike, to investigate that sordid incident, Yar'Adua in his true uninspiring style has refused to release the official report into the investigation. Incidents such as these serve to mock Yar'Adua's propagandistic commitment to "openness in the conduct of public affairs".

Midway into his four-year tenure, Yar'Adua's government has established two main topics on which journalists and the public are not allowed to provide free and informed commentary. The first taboo topic concerns Yar'Adua's health. Is the president in good health or in poor health? No, you can't know because Yar'Adua and his protectors want to keep the information secret. The wacky logic is that it is not in the public interest for journalists to report on the fragile health of the president.

The second forbidden topic concerns media speculation about Yar'Adua. Under this present government, media speculation of any kind is treason. If Yar'Adua were a military dictator, he would have revived the notorious Decree 4 of 1984 (now defunct) which Muhammadu Buhari and Tunde Idiagbon used effectively to scuttle a free press in Nigeria.

As far as Yar'Adua and his staff are concerned, the president's health is nobody's business. Persuaded by this illogical view, security officials have developed their own secret law which regards media commentary on Yar'Adua's health as a threat to national security. It was on this basis that a national newspaper - Leadership - was dragged to court last year by Yar'Adua because the president was offended that the paper had reported inaccurately on the condition of his health. More on this shortly!

Whether Yar'Adua likes it or not, public opinion holds that, in the absence of credible and timely information on the president's health, the public is entitled to discuss and speculate on Yar'Adua health. The reason is simple: an infirm president is not fit to govern. Research evidence suggests that rumour and speculation often subsist when accurate and basic information is hidden from the public domain.

Yar'Adua has a history of antagonism against the media. And it is against the background of the adversarial relationship between journalists and Yar'Adua's government that we must treat with suspicion Yar'Adua's recent order to his ministers and heads of department to make themselves and official information accessible to the media. Here are some facts. In September 2008, Channels Television was shut down and its journalists arrested and assaulted because the station broadcast an unconfirmed news story concerning Yar'Adua's alleged intention to resign. The illegal arrest and detention of those journalists violated their constitutional rights to a fair hearing.

While the closure of the television station and the detention of its journalists lasted, Yar'Adua maintained silence. His cool and casual attitude to abuse of journalists and the right of Channels Television to remain in business depicted Yar'Adua as an anti-thesis of his own "rule of law" mantra. As I argued in an article five months ago, a president who swore to defend the constitution of the nation cannot watch as an agency of the state destroys media freedom, one of the philosophical pillars of democracy.

The closure of Channels Television, the arrest and detention of journalists and Yar'Adua's silence over the incidents exposed dramatically Yar'Adua's pretentiousness as a defender of media freedom. Yar'Adua's sham image as an advocate of press freedom was further blemished in 2008 when Leadership newspaper reported in a November edition that: "Yar'Adua has not attended any public function in the last two days... His deteriorating health prevented him from attending yesterday's (last Friday's) Jumma'at prayer at the National Mosque. Earlier, he had also failed to show up at Sheraton Hotel, where he was billed to attend a function along with the visiting German president. No excuse was advanced for the president's absence on both occasions."

Yar'Adua was so offended by the inaccuracies in that report that he directed his lawyers to commence legal action against the newspaper. It is important to clarify that Leadership newspaper acknowledged its editorial lapses in failing to crosscheck the veracity of the report. The paper subsequently apologised to Yar'Adua. But Yar'Adua would not accept an apology on the basis that the newspaper report had cast aspersions on his health and his capacity to govern.

There are compelling reasons why the public must be free to discuss Yar'Adua's health and his failure to provide credible leadership. In his capacity as president, Yar'Adua is a public figure. He is not an ordinary citizen. He can expect the media to scrutinise everything he does or says in public.

Nigerians are entitled to ask questions about Yar'Adua, his character, his health, his achievements and failures, whether the man is a good role model for other politicians and whether he is a temperamental or cool-headed man. There is nothing wrong with journalists highlighting these issues as an agenda for public discussion. Overall, it is Yar'Adua, not the media, that is allergic to transparent government and media freedom.

Robot  # 1 | 17.04.2009 06:02

Yar'Adua's allergy to 'open government' By Levi Obijiofor For the second time in two years, President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua has attempted to project himself as an advocate of press freedom. But, like his meaningless promise to adhere to the rule of law, Yar'Adua's latest order to his ministers and heads of government departments to make information readily available to the media is a stunning departure from the common practice where ministers and heads of departments routinely engaged in public misinformation and deliberate hoarding of information from the media. According to Olusegun Adeniyi, presidential spokesperson on media and publicity, who broke the news to government officers and journalists last weekend, Yar'Adua's new instruction was designed to facilitate more transparency and accountability in the administration of government business. He said: "...ministers and senior government officials ha...Read the full article.